Toggle sidebar

Proposal: Pittsburgh-Dallas

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
Empoleon8771

Empoleon8771

Registered User
Aug 25, 2015
86,924
88,232
Redmond, WA
Penguins trade Karlsson at $5 million (50% retained)
Dallas trades Dumba, Bourque and a conditional 2026 1st (2026 2nd if the Stars do not win a cup in either 2025 or 2026)

The Stars upgrade on their 2nd pair RD spot after it appears Dumba has been a dud for them (2 points in 28 games), while they IMO have the good LD to help compensate for Karlsson's defensive issues. The Penguins get an interesting center prospect in Bourque and a 1st or 2nd, based on the Stars winning a cup.

Dumba has this year and next year at $3.7 million, while Karlsson (in this deal) would have this year and 2 more years at $5 million. Bourque is a RFA after the year. I'm inclined to think that asking for Bourque in this deal might be too much, but I'd be interested in hearing alternatives to Bourque that would be acceptable.
Click to read more...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tasty Biscuits
Satan said:
I like EK but that's too much, Bob
Click to expand...

Would it be asking for Bourque is too much? I don't really see how a good prospect and a conditional 1st/2nd for Karlsson is all that much :dunno:

I don't think Dumba has any value beyond evening out the contracts, so it's mostly Bourque and the pick as value going back. It wouldn't surprise me if asking for Bourque was too much, his NHL numbers this year are kinda underwhelming but I know he was a very highly regarded prospect by Wheeler.

If Stars fans think Bourque would be too much, I'd be interested in hearing a more appropriate prospect to swap him out with. I'm not super familiar with the Stars prospect pool, but I think the base (Karlsson with heavy retention for a dump RHD, a prospect and a conditional 1st/2nd) seems fair.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: StlBigFly
Dumba and 1st for Karlsson retained would be enough for me. No need to add a prospect if it makes Dallas balk.

But also this should be a last second deal at the deadline. The Penguins are flirting with a wildcard spot and getting worse on defense would be a bad idea if we are close. If not then sure
 
Can the Pens retain that much? Thought there was a lower cap on retention.

At first glance it does seem fairly even, although Mav's been waking up as of late.
 
Dr Pepper said:
Can the Pens retain that much? Thought there was a lower cap on retention.

At first glance it does seem fairly even, although Mav's been waking up as of late.
Click to expand...

Yeah they can retain him down to $5 million, San Jose retained him from $11.5 million to $10 million and the Penguins can retain an additional 50% on top of that.

Karlsson obviously has huge defensive issues, but at 2.5 years and $5 million I think he'd have pretty good value.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ignatius, TooManyHumans and Dr Pepper
Surprised if Dubas would retain that long on one of his bigger mistakes?
Basically just magnifies it further no?
 
Sticksandsun said:
Surprised if Dubas would retain that long on one of his bigger mistakes?
Basically just magnifies it further no?
Click to expand...

It's actually not that much money in retention due to Karlsson having a back diving contract. He's owed $9 million in 2025-2026 and $7.5 million in 2026-2027. Assuming they still owe Karlsson $4 million on his $10 million salary for this year and they retain 50%, they'll only be eating $10.25 million over 3 years with this retention. That's also why I think Karlsson could be an enticing piece in a trade, he's only owed about $3.5 million a year in the last 2 years of his deal with this retention.

The cap penalty is high at $5 million AAV, but the cap is supposedly going to start skyrocketing and the Penguins aren't competitive anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TooManyHumans and Sticksandsun
There's smoke on this and the OP is well considered.

It all comes down to the sliding scale of retention effecting the value. The Stars do have the capacity to absorb the EK deal at lesser retention than this which could lower the return. Obviously the Pens would want someone like Bourque to show for it and the Stars would want to hang on to him since he's already turning a corner and starting to produce at the NHL level on the current roster and plays both sides of special teams.

If you're Dallas you'd prefer to have Pitt retain less and just do the pick plus a different prospect. But at 50% retention you could go out and make another trade somewhere else and load up even more so I see the worth in that.

EK would indeed look great here paired with Lindell at ES and running the PP which is our major weakpoint.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ignatius, EK392000, Tasty Biscuits and 5 others
piqued said:
There's smoke on this and the OP is well considered.

It all comes down to the sliding scale of retention effecting the value. The Stars do have the capacity to absorb the EK deal at lesser retention than this which could lower the return. Obviously the Pens would want someone like Bourque to show for it and the Stars would want to hang on to him since he's already turning a corner and starting to produce at the NHL level on the current roster and plays both sides of special teams.

If you're Dallas you'd prefer to have Pitt retain less and just do the pick plus a different prospect. But at 50% retention you could go out and make another trade somewhere else and load up even more so I see the worth in that.

EK would indeed look great here paired with Lindell at ES and running the PP which is our major weakpoint.
Click to expand...

Honestly if Dallas could make less retention work for a less return, I'd be more inclined to give up the pick and just get Bourque. The Penguins C prospect pool is pretty much non-existent so Bourque as a potential top-6 C is super appealing. But the same reasons I'd want him are the reasons why Dallas would want to keep him.

I do think you're correct that lesser retention and swapping Bourque for a lesser prospect is the more likely outcome if a deal would happen.
 
I like this deal. I'd throw in DOC to keep it Bourque . DOC is a 30 point forward on a 900k expiring deal. He's probably worth a 3rd but for a playoff team a guy who skates and plays hard. Definitely a good edition to the bottom 6.

I would even remove the need for a 1st.

EK 50% + DOC for Dumba + 2026 2nd + Bourque + 2027 conditional 3rd if they win in the next 2 years.

Lowers pick weight. Gives you a bottom 6 player but we keep Bourque in it.
 
TheTotalPackage said:
I gain a whole lot more respect for GMs if they admit and eat their mistakes than holding on to a depreciating/dead asset so they don't look as bad for making the mistake in the first place.
Click to expand...
Granlund wasn't going to work here because of Our coach and Petry was big mistake by Hextall.

We paid a 1st for that.

In the end EK can get us a 1st equivalent back. It does suck we didn't make playoffs but I gotta say watching EK on this roster has been fun and better than those 2.
 
I would love Karlsson in Dallas. I think Lindell can cover up his defensive issues. That being said I would hate to give Bourque up as he is a NHLer not a prospect and starting to show up more. It would kill the deal for me. Dallas also does not need 50% retention to drive up the price.
 
If the issue is Bourque, could the value be evened out by the Penguins adding a prospect back like Broz?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom